9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[Mick West]

So you think this raw footage:

​




Is a digital fake.

It's very interesting to me how someone can make the leap from "that looks impossible", to "it is impossible", and do this entirely on the evidence of their visceral reaction to some video. "Looks fake" immediately jumps to "is fake".

Yet the explanation that is proposed to explain it seems vastly more unreasonable than the "official story". Even though a plane did hit the building (as witness by thousands of people, and many videos and photos, not to mention the large plane-shaped hole, and the plane parts scattered around), somehow this particular video looks strange, so must have been a digital fake.

Yes, it looks strange. EVERYONE AGREES IT LOOKS STRANGE.

But to leap from there to "it's fake" and to boldly state along the way "you really don't need an expert knowledge of physics to understand this. Just look at it with your own eyes. It's a joke. ", well, that's an argument from personal incredulity, and nothing else.

The problem is one of scale. The plane is big. The building is big, yet constructed with little mass on the exterior skin. You've not seen a plane hit a building before. So naturally you won't be able to predict what is going to happen. Pretty much whatever happens is going to look strange.

What do you thing SHOULD have happened in that video?

Please just answer that. If you can't tell what should have happened, then how do you know what DID happen is fake?

 

[grav]

So you think this raw footage:


Is a digital fake.

Obviously.

It's very interesting to me how someone can make the leap from "that looks impossible", to "it is impossible", and do this entirely on the evidence of their visceral reaction to some video. "Looks fake" immediately jumps to "is fake".

Authentic videos tend to look real and not fake. I've watched hundreds of videos of vehicles and planes crashing in all sorts of ways and none of them looked fake in the slightest. How odd that 9/11 produced the first plane crash videos that look extremely fake to many people. Must be a coincidence?

Yet the explanation that is proposed to explain it seems vastly more unreasonable than the "official story". Even though a plane did hit the building (as witness by thousands of people, and many videos and photos, not to mention the large plane-shaped hole, and the plane parts scattered around), somehow this particular video looks strange, so must have been a digital fake.

This is your argument from personal incredulity. You can not fathom how a series of photographs and videos could be faked, therefore it is impossible. And isn't it interesting how practically every one of these "amateur" cameramen or photographers are directly connected to the media or computer graphics industry? How odd!

Witnessed by thousands of people? Have you spoken to any of them or is this a statistic you read somewhere?

Yes, it looks strange. EVERYONE AGREES IT LOOKS STRANGE.

Yep. It looks strange because it is strange.

The problem is one of scale. The plane is big. The building is big, yet constructed with little mass on the exterior skin. You've not seen a plane hit a building before. So naturally you won't be able to predict what is going to happen. Pretty much whatever happens is going to look strange.

Seeing a plane hit a skyscraper for the first time is supposed to look strange? Gee, I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

What do you thing SHOULD have happened in that video?

Laws of motion should have been obeyed. This has already been explained in redundant detail for the last 12 pages, in which you continued to dance around repeatedly.

In any case, I am certainly not interested in debating with someone who finds the official conspiracy theory "reasonable" in its entirety. This stance is simply disastrous to any hope of having a rational or skeptical discussion. In my opinion, a person who makes these claims has zero interest in the pursuit of truth.

Good luck to you.

 

[Mick West]

Authentic videos tend to look real and not fake. I've watched hundreds of videos of vehicles and planes crashing in all sorts of ways and none of them looked fake in the slightest. How odd that 9/11 produced the first plane crash videos that look extremely fake to many people. Must be a coincidence?

Not at all. It was also the first time that someone had videoed a plane crashing into a skyscraper. Hence it would naturally look unique.

The thing here is that what you see DOES actually obey the laws of physics, as has been explained in excessive detail in this thread. It's just not intuitively obvious, so your mind rejects it.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

And I will also add, that I agree that the videos of the mostly-aluminum plane entering the WTC building, specifically the Hezarkhani "amateur" video is nothing short of a joke. That has been explained in this thread repeatedly. But you really don't need an expert knowledge of physics to understand this. Just look at it with your own eyes. It's a joke.

You are claiming that what killed thousands of people was a JOKE?

That's a joke, a very sick joke. It takes a very sick mind to process what happened and come up with a claim like you have.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Even I am ashamed for you, except at the same time I feel hatred toward you.

I really do.

 

[grav]

You are claiming that what killed thousands of people was a JOKE?

That's a joke, a very sick joke. It takes a very sick mind to process what happened and come up with a claim like you have.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Even I am ashamed for you, except at the same time I feel hatred toward you.

I really do.

Jay, I certainly find nothing humorous about people dying, IF that is in fact what happened. I am skeptical of the number of 9/11 victims that has been told to us over and over again in the newsmedia, and I am also considering the possibility that there were no deaths. In any case, I will not be swayed from considering all possibilities because of some notion that it "disrespects the dead" or other such nonsense.

I question the veracity of 9/11 victims based this on evidence of repeated photoshopping of the memorial photographs.

Here is just one example of many. The images are from two different official memorial websites.
[h=4]Howard Kestenbaum[/h]View attachment 137
http://www.voicesofseptember11.org/dev/memorial_family_tributes.php?searchletter=k

View attachment 138
http://www.williams67.com/howard-kestenbaum/

There are tons of these examples for other alleged victims.

More analysis and examples of possibly simulated victims found here:
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm


The other main reason I question the 9/11 deaths is because of the glaring absence of entries in the Social Security Death Index. There are no more people recorded dying in NYC on 9/11, than any other generic day. This presents a big problem for the official story of 9/11 victims.

This video will walk you through this step by step:
​

There are other reasons as well, including videos of some obvious acting jobs done by the "victims' relatives", as well as reports of workers being denied entry to the WTC buildings on the early morning of 9/11 because of fire drills.

How could the victims be faked? Remember, we're just dealing with photographs and words as the evidence for these peoples' existence. There is nothing far-fetched or out of the realm of possibility of creating fake identities. It happens all the time. Whether you believe the victims are real or not, you have to admit it would be an excellent strategy for discouraging investigation.

I'm very skeptical of every bit of information we have been told concerning 9/11. That's all.

 

[Mick West]

I don't think you are going to have any luck convincing ordinary people of your fringe theory. Why don't you start trying to convince other truthers?

 

[Ross Marsden]

...
I'm very skeptical of every bit of information we have been told concerning 9/11. That's all.

"... every bit ..."? Is the date of the event correct?

 

[MikeC]

I don't think you are going to have any luck convincing ordinary people of your fringe theory. Why don't you start trying to convince other truthers?

And good luck with that - most truthers have long since ditched the "no plane" theories

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, they seem to feel the no-planers are part of some huge conspiracy, which I'm sure is mutual.

And now I suppose my suggestion that grav go convince them will then convince both sides that I'm part of the other's conspiracy.

 

[grav]

How interesting that instead of ripping my 'crazy theory' of fabricated 9/11 victims to shreds, instead it's snarky, dismissive, condescending remarks.

I thought this was a debunking forum? C'mon guys you should be having a field day. Lets hear your rational explanations for why the 9/11 "victims'" memorial photographs are littered with evidence of major manipulation, or why hardly any entries are to be found in the SSDI.

This makes for interesting viewing as well. Watch these "relatives of 9/11 victims" tell their scripted sob-story right on cue, over and over again. But they couldn't possibly be acting, could they??

​


But hey, what do I know? I mean you guys all read about 3,000, 2,800, 2,700, 2,980, or whatever the new 9/11 death-count is in your favorite mass-media release. Why would they print it if it wasn't true?

 

[Mick West]

It's not worth ripping your 'crazy theory' to shreds because it's not worth debunking.

This is not intended primarily a debunking forum. It's ABOUT debunking (meta-bunk). Part of that is about how to debunk effectively. The no-plane theory is ridiculous, and has already been thoroughly discussed. Your "fake victims" theory is just an extension of that. An exercise in trying to support an unsupportable theory by whatever mean necessary. I looked at the photo evidence and found it thoroughly unconvincing, ditto with the "acting", and fewer deaths than you might expect were recorded on the SSDI because not all victims or victim's families were on social security, so there was no reason for their family to report their deaths.

But really there's no need to go beyond your ridiculous "no-plane theory" which only a handful of zealots believe. I've got better things to debunk. Your theory debunks itself.

Sorry if I sound rude. I'm sure the theory means a lot to you. But there's a saying "pick your battles", and I see no reason to pick this one. We're all stocked up here.

 

[grav]

Ah, I see. And I wonder how important it is, to you, to protect your belief in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory? Do you think, perhaps, your personal comfort is at stake here? I wonder if that has something to do with your being "unconvinced" by contradictory information?

 

[Mick West]

It's not important at all.

What's important is to get as close to the truth as possible. I see nothing at all that indicates what you are say is remotely near the truth. Starting out with the theory than no planes hit the towers basically invalidates everything else you say. Because your no-plane theory has no evidence to support it, and a vast amount of evidence against it.

 

[grav]

I see.

And you, having studied the official 9/11 conspiracy and "aluminum-cuts-through-steel" plane theory, and having found the entire narrative "reasonable", believe you have gotten as close to the "Truth" as possible? And you then proceed to cast a skeptical eye towards any contradictory information that does not measure up with your overall "reasonable" closeness of truth you have convinced yourself you have attained.

It's an interesting point of view, Mick, but I'm not buying it for a second.

I really think, when it comes down to it, it is highly important for you to align yourself with a comfortable, mainstream version of events, and that facts and evidence have very little to do with it. It's kind of like the MythBusters and Penn&Teller type television shows. They can talk "facts and evidence" all day long. But at the end of the day, they are not going to be promoting a concept that runs directly against the grain of mainstream media/military viewpoints, or the very mass media networks that are giving them a podium.

That's how I see things. But hey, you have thoroughly debunked everything by calling it "ridiculous" and "unconvincing". And though you have not produced a single rational explanation (as evident in the past 12 pages), for how a mostly aluminum airplane severs multiple steel columns and proceeds inside of a building without exhibiting any visible deformation , you have somehow convinced yourself that you have, in fact, debunked everything. Very impressive.

 

[Mick West]

Describe for me what SHOULD have happened when a 500 mph fully loaded 767 hits the WTC? And none of this "it should obey the laws of physics", which nobody can deny. Please say WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

This might help:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf

Also, remember a couple of points: aircraft grade aluminum alloy is stronger than steel, and liquids are essentially incompressible.

 

[grav]

Describe for me what SHOULD have happened when a 500 mph fully loaded 767 hits the WTC? And none of this "it should obey the laws of physics", which nobody can deny. Please say WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

The plane would be destroyed upon collision with the multiple steel columns instead of going through them. In other words, it would look real and behave like it was in reality, and people would not be laughing at how awfully fake it looks.

This might help:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf

Oh, the 'Science'! The charts and graphs and numbers! So impressive! My favorite part is where the good doctor bases his rationale of what we witnessed with the 9/11 video planes, with comparisons with an F-4 jet which was obliterated against a concrete wall instantaneously upon impact. It was not magically cutting through other materials (like say, steel) and then afterwards being destroyed. How interesting that the 9/11 aluminum plane wings maintained their structural strength long enough to fully sever all those steel columns!

Also, remember a couple of points: aircraft grade aluminum alloy is stronger than steel, and liquids are essentially incompressible.

Aluminum alloy is 'stronger' than 'steel' ? What do you mean by stronger? Some steel? All steel? Hrmm.. what are you really saying here?

Mick, I can't help but get the feeling you are deliberately trying to cloud a very simple issue of which object is going tear the other object to shreds upon impact.

You think birds flying at 500 mph are going to puncture and take chunks out of the WTC steel columns?



I'm sure your "physics" will tell us why this is a non-issue

 

[Mick West]

That bird vs. plane is actually a good example of what we are talking about here.

The plane has a thin skin over a strong skeleton. Much like the WTC. The bird is essentially a bag of liquid at that speed. The bird punctures the skin of the plane, then is stopped by the stronger structures underneath.

Aluminum alloy is 'stronger' than 'steel' ? What do you mean by stronger? Some steel? All steel?

I mean that A36 structural steel (commonly used in construction) has a tensile strength 58-80 ksi, while a 767 is made from 7075 aluminum alloy which has a tensile strength of 67-78 ksi. So on average 7075 would be stronger that A36. The perimeter columns that broke were made from various grades of steel ranging from 50 to 65 ksi. So the 767 aluminum was stronger than the majority of the steel in the perimeter columns.

Ref NIST NCSART 1-3A, section 2.1.5.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf

So explain again why it would not break the perimeter columns?

 

[MikeC]

Most aluminium a/c are made from 2024-T3 - which still ahs a strength of 58-62 ksi.

However the issue is not so much about strength - as illustrated by birds hitting a/c at high speed - the bird has a much lower skin strength than the aluminium it hits.

However the kinetic energy of the impact has to go somewhere. Some is turned into heat. Some is used splattering the bird into mush, and some is expended tearing the aluminium.

simlarly when the a/c hits the building - the energy is dissipated by generating heat, the materials bending (or flowing/splashing if they are or become liquid), and breaking if they exceed their tensile strength.

It is pointless to say that one thing is stronger than the other therefore it would not break, bend, etc., unless you analyse the entire situation, including the fime frame.

for example when the plane hits the building, the plane and building are each subjected to enourmous accelerations - at 500mph (let's call it 800kph) the part of the plane that strikes a statinoary part of the building tries to come to an instantaneous halt, and the parts of the building that are struck try to instantaneously accelerate to the plane's speed.

Onviously they cannot do this - so the acceleration takes the form of deformation. How much force is involved? Well we all know now that F = ma - it is probably possible to calculate the acceleration - I'm not going to try though - it would have to do with the elasticity of the steel & aluminium involved.

But all that force is also applied across a very limited area - and force on an area = pressure. As I understand it, it is the pressure that actually does the damage in terms of deforming structure - if the same force could be spread across a much wider area there is less pressure, and less deformation.

So the damage to the building's external steel structure has to be seen as a very large force being applied across a relatively small total area.

 

[Mick West]

I think the the structural elements of the plane (i.e. the strong heavy parts, the frame, beams, ribs, etc.) are made of 7075 though. See here for similar 737:

http://www.b737.org.uk/production.htm

Fuselage skin, slats, flaps - areas primarily loaded in tension - Aluminium alloy 2024 (Aluminium & copper) - Good fatigue performance, fracture toughness and slow propagation rate.
Frames, stringers, keel & floor beams, wing ribs - Aluminium alloy 7075 (Aluminium & zinc) - High mechanical properties and improved stress corrosion cracking resistance.

And others for various smaller parts.

 

[grav]

This is a helpful video that has a lot of plane-crash video and imagery. It gives you a sense of just how fragile these things are, and how easily they come apart.

​

You can talk physical specifics of this or that all you want, but at the end of the day, it doesn't add up. It is simply a ridiculous premise that this 9/11 plane maintained its structural integrity for any amount of time after the collision was initiated. This is the same reason why 9/11 produced the first crash video that looks very fake to so many people. Because it is.
https://www.metabunk.org/images/hezarkhanicumv3.gif
That said, I feel dirty for even being sucked into another Plane-Hugger/No-Planer rabbit hole. If you want to believe those blotchy pixels are real planes after all this time, it is not any of my business to try and convince you otherwise.

 

[Mick West]

You are deliberately ignoring the science. You say "You can talk physical specifics of this or that all you want" and "Oh, the 'Science'! The charts and graphs and numbers! So impressive!". And then you make an appeal to incredulity - it looks incredible, so it must not have happened.

The problem here is that if you actually do the math, and if you look at the materials and energies involved, then what you see is actually exactly what should happen under those circumstances.

But no, apparently 200 tons of stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy wrapped around an incompressible liquid travelling at 500 miles per hour would just splat like a bug on a windshield? That's an argument from incredulity. It's not science.

When you get down and do the math, the kinetic energy required to break the perimeter beams was only about 5% of the total kinetic energy of the plane.

 

[MikeC]

This is a helpful video that has a lot of plane-crash video and imagery. It gives you a sense of just how fragile these things are, and how easily they come apart.

The video is outright misleading - 200,000 ton ships made of steel also float, also break apart.

A plane is a very strong tube - take a drinking straw - the solid type, not the type that has a concertina section that bends. Ram it into something end on - see how much force it takes to break it. Now take another straw of the same type, support it at both ends, and see how much for it takes to break it if you push the middle of it sideways.

 

[lee h oswald]

The video is outright misleading - 200,000 ton ships made of steel also float, also break apart.

A plane is a very strong tube - take a drinking straw - the solid type, not the type that has a concertina section that bends. Ram it into something end on - see how much force it takes to break it. Now take another straw of the same type, support it at both ends, and see how much for it takes to break it if you push the middle of it sideways.

What?! 200 thousand ton ships also break apart...yes they do, but they are subjected to completely different forces for far longer periods of time in order to break apart, and ships and aircraft are not designed the same. You are comparing apples to bananas.

A plane is a very strong tube, is it? Ram it into something dead straight and it will take a bit of crushing, like your straw - what happens if there's the slightest angle upon applying the pressure? Snap?
And yes, place an aircraft fuselage between two steel vices and squeeze, dead straight if you like. Which one breaks first?

 

[Mick West]

The point it that if it's dead straight, then it will require several order of magnitude more force to break.

When the math is done, the forces involved are commensurate with the end results.

It might seem intuitively incredible, but that's what science and math tells us what happened. Perhaps you should try inserting some numbers into your argument.

 

[lee h oswald]

You are deliberately ignoring the science. You say "You can talk physical specifics of this or that all you want" and "Oh, the 'Science'! The charts and graphs and numbers! So impressive!". And then you make an appeal to incredulity - it looks incredible, so it must not have happened.

The problem here is that if you actually do the math, and if you look at the materials and energies involved, then what you see is actually exactly what should happen under those circumstances.

But no, apparently 200 tons of stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy wrapped around an incompressible liquid travelling at 500 miles per hour would just splat like a bug on a windshield? That's an argument from incredulity. It's not science.

When you get down and do the math, the kinetic energy required to break the perimeter beams was only about 5% of the total kinetic energy of the plane.

Oh yeah?

If you actually do the math....?! Which you haven't. The materials and energies involved? Stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy? Really? In what way stronger? Exactly?

To confirm: are you saying that this aluminium skin, a few millimetres thick, was stronger than the steel columns it struck? Don't forget to take into account the proportions of both elements in this.

Kinetic energy again? What's more important here is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Action = negative reaction. Now the question is which item acted upon was more equipped to cope with the action/reaction?

 

[lee h oswald]

The point it that if it's dead straight, then it will require several order of magnitude more force to break.

When the math is done, the forces involved are commensurate with the end results.

It might seem intuitively incredible, but that's what science and math tells us what happened. Perhaps you should try inserting some numbers into your argument.

And what was 'dead straight' that is pertinent to this discussion? Apart from an abstract.

 

[lee h oswald]

The point it that if it's dead straight, then it will require several order of magnitude more force to break.

When the math is done, the forces involved are commensurate with the end results.

It might seem intuitively incredible, but that's what science and math tells us what happened. Perhaps you should try inserting some numbers into your argument.

I don't see any numbers in your argument

 

[lee h oswald]

It's not science.

When you get down and do the math, the kinetic energy required to break the perimeter beams was only about 5% of the total kinetic energy of the plane.

And how much kinetic energy was required to break the aluminium skin of the aircraft?

 

[Mick West]

And how much kinetic energy was required to break the aluminium skin of the aircraft?

Probably a similar amount. But you'd have be more specific in what you are asking there.

When two object collide at high speed, it's perfectly plausible for both objects to be badly damaged. Or destroyed. Bullets, for example, are made of a soft metal, and they are often destroyed upon impact. However they still do immense damage to the their targets.

The plane here is like a bullet. The plane is obviously going to be destroyed, but that does not mean the building would be undamaged.

It's all about the transfer of kinetic energy. The energy has to go somewhere, and there's lots of it. Where does it go?

 

[lee h oswald]

You are deliberately ignoring the science.... you make an appeal to incredulity - it looks incredible, so it must not have happened.

The problem here is that if you actually do the math, and if you look at the materials and energies involved, then what you see is actually exactly what should happen under those circumstances.

But no, apparently 200 tons of stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy wrapped around an incompressible liquid travelling at 500 miles per hour would just splat like a bug on a windshield? That's an argument from incredulity. It's not science.

When you get down and do the math, the kinetic energy required to break the perimeter beams was only about 5% of the total kinetic energy of the plane.

No, you are twisting the science, you are crossing terms of reference by saying ridiculous things like: stronger than steel aluminum alloy, without reference to the relative thicknesses of the materials in question; it's ludicrous. The observation is based on experience. The most basic ground of empiricism, the system you claim to advocate.

 

[lee h oswald]

Probably a similar amount. But you'd have be more specific in what you are asking there.

When two object collide at high speed, it's perfectly plausible for both objects to be badly damaged. Or destroyed. Bullets, for example, are made of a soft metal, and they are often destroyed upon impact. However they still do immense damage to the their targets.

The plane here is like a bullet. The plane is obviously going to be destroyed, but that does not mean the building would be undamaged.

It's all about the transfer of kinetic energy. The energy has to go somewhere, and there's lots of it. Where does it go?

How could I be more specific? No-one ever suggested the building would be undamaged, why bring it up? It is not all about the transfer of kinetic energy, and if it were, why didn't you mention it before? What a load of tripe.

 

[lee h oswald]

And what was 'dead straight' that is pertinent to this discussion? Apart from an abstract.

?

 

[lee h oswald]

Oh yeah?

Stronger-than-steel aluminum alloy? Really? In what way stronger? Exactly?

To confirm: are you saying that this aluminium skin, a few millimetres thick, was stronger than the steel columns it struck? Don't forget to take into account the proportions of both elements in this.

?

 

[MikeC]

What?! 200 thousand ton ships also break apart...yes they do, but they are subjected to completely different forces for far longer periods of time in order to break apart, and ships and aircraft are not designed the same. You are comparing apples to bananas.

Yep - just like you - seemed fair enough - for example this bit of your reply:

A plane is a very strong tube, is it? Ram it into something dead straight and it will take a bit of crushing, like your straw - what happens if there's the slightest angle upon applying the pressure? Snap?

Yep - except of course a plant flying at 500 mph is essentially flying in a straight line when it hits somethign head on - so you are comparing apples and banannas!!

And yes, place an aircraft fuselage between two steel vices and squeeze, dead straight if you like. Which one breaks first?

And again.....

 

[lee h oswald]

A plane is a very strong tube, is it? Ram it into something dead straight and it will take a bit of crushing, like your straw - what happens if there's the slightest angle upon applying the pressure? Snap?

Correct, a plane flies in a straight line at a (very brief) moment of impact. Even when it hits something head-on. That would be what angle? 180, square-on, yeah? But what if the plane approached the object at angle which was not square, 180, head-on...? To argue that any object travelling towards a straight lne (eg the facade of the building) is always at 180 to that line at the point of strike is not right. In the case of an airliner going full throttle at low altitude with an amateur pilot at the controls, we might just struggle with the 180, head-on thing. Have you ever flown a civil airliner at over 500mph at 1000 asl? How do you think it might feel if you had to imagine it? And then hit a building with it

 

[MikeC]

It doesn't matter what the angle is - the building is not moving into the side of the plane, and the plane is not moving sideways into the building - the plane is moving more or less straight ahead.

 

[lee h oswald]

It doesn't matter what the angle is - the building is not moving into the side of the plane, and the plane is not moving sideways into the building - the plane is moving more or less straight ahead.

Ofcourse it matters what the angle is. If an aircraft approached a facade at an angle of 12 degrees or 35 degrees or 90 degrees then the damage would be reflected on the aircraft according to the angle at which it struck the facade. For example, at twelve degrees the wing would likely strike the facade before any other part. This would result in a whole different set of observed damages to an approach at 90 degrees. Surely you can see that. The fact that the aircraft is always flying in a 'straight line' would cease to be true at that first moment of impact with the facade

 

[Mick West]

Is the facade was solid, strong, and frictionless, then perhaps yes.

However, the facade was mostly glass (in terms of surface area). Imagine it with the glass removed, then it's just a series of girders and the front edges of the floors.

 

[lee h oswald]

Is the facade was solid, strong, and frictionless, then perhaps yes.

However, the facade was mostly glass (in terms of surface area). Imagine it with the glass removed, then it's just a series of girders and the front edges of the floors.

Eh? Another of Newton's, inertia, 1st law of motion: Every body perseveres in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a right line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. I'd say that an aircraft going 'in a right line' and then striking something, like say, the facade of a building, might constitute a 'force impressed upon it', n'est pas?

Maybe Galileo's previous is easier: A body at rest remains at rest; a body in motion continues to move at constant velocity along a straight line unless acted upon by an external force

Facade was mostly glass, was it?


mostly steel, actually, surface area-wise

 

[Mick West]

What do you think actually happened then? Did a plane actually hit the World Trade Center?